Now For Something Completely Different on the Forums

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (86 posts)

87
gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

Who is God to you?
reply report
1. 77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  God to me is an uncomfortable topic in which you cannot openly oppose people in their beliefs, lest you get some moralistic interpretation of someone else's abstract reality that applies solely to them and not perfectly, or even nearly to others. Essentially, God is whatever you want it to be, and is notorious for causing as-of-yet endless conflict all around the world.
  
  Taking a more philosophical stance, though? There is no universal God, no entity or being to turn to when we die, but there is instinct and biological constructs to explain the necessity of the concept people place on the abstract reality that is God. Essentially, it makes sense that most of the world is, "spiritual," in some way, even more explainable would be the mechanisms that draw people to it-- such as the endless conflict it creates that I mentioned already.
  
  God, to me, is nothing more than a human's ability to be paragon-like. In our attempts to make things better we create the concept of Godliness, and try to emulate that same manmade construct. In our guilt for failing to live up to our own standards, feeling shame for our ignorance, and suffering incessantly as human existence demands of us for growth, we create the antithesis that is Hell and a Devil.
  
  I hope this is an appropriate answer.
  reply report
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It is appropriate because that is the reality you have created for yourself. It is apparent to me that you have never had a true spiritual experience because those of us who have do not rely on faith but are secure in the knowledge of what we have experienced. Now please don't take this for a criticism of you. It is not. We all have our own realities and most of us are where we are supposed to be. Even the zealot Christian slayer, the Roman Jew Saul, had an experience that turned him into Paul the Christian zealot. Most peoples' experiences aren't that dramatic, however. So don't be surprised if you experience a life-changing experience. Or not. Blessings to you.
  reply report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I'd heard others in the forums say that you were hard to get along with. Frankly I don't give a damn.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  67
  lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I think the response was to Kyler who has used foul language. MizB usually gets along with those of opposing views.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, it wasn't aimed at you, Tess. Sorry that wasn't clear.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  87
  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing is wrong w/having different opinions. It takes bravery to voice different opinions. Tess, be yourself, express your voice.
  reply report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Shove 'em where they count," is foul language? She should go shove her blessings in someone else's face. Don't project your own definitions on to my words if you don't want it to seem foul. Unless you mean the dump, in which case that was in reference to my post, and it was more tactless than foul; my kind of humor, as we all know, or not.
  
  By getting along you must mean regularly bashing the beliefs of others without warrant, and getting ignored, lol. We must be witnessing two different sides of the same coin that is Bejabbers.
  reply report
  67
  lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, you sure are an amazing troll. You picked the right phrase which implies you know exactly what it means. Also, I was not the only one, the first response was someone saying you are hard to get along with. That is true, no doubt the only reason I commented is that Tess thought it was meant for her. Otherwise, I usually ignore you too.
  reply report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Trust me, I'm quite self aware on how hard it is to get along with me, that's why I offered no protest. I altered my behavior on the forums early in my stay on HP after watching you, ragged, mark, and all the other pretentious regulars; I just happen to take the opposite side of behavior for the sole purpose of garnering your inadvertent distaste. My juices flow best when under great scrutiny, it holds me to a higher standard and gives me the control to spit on standards or surpass them. To be honest, I like wallowing in the mud beneath the standards, though; take me conversing with individuals on the forums to begin with as an example.
  
  As for your interpretation of things, whatever helps you cope. Have a big, "Yikes, bro," stamp from me! C'est la vie!
  reply report
  67
  lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, me too as you see some of my conversations. The forums however are not scientific enough to give me that extra scrutiny, it's just a huge proportion of conspiracy theorists out here. I get that extra scrutiny through my interaction with others at work and from peer review processes while I work on my Ph.D.
  
  Oh and don't worry about it, there's no distaste. It is just that I do not see any benefit from conversing with you. I do like poking one particular person because he seems like a deplorable human being from the way he speaks to others.
  reply report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So we are different portions of the same chaotic dinner plan; beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Good luck on your Ph.D. btw! As you can tell, formal education will always be far beyond me; I envy your dedication.
  reply report
  67
  lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks.
  report
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, Kyler J Falk, you put words in my mouth. I said "spiritual experience." You said "religious experience" and got nasty over something I didn't say. To make matters worse, you used the phrase "religious empathy". I cannot relate to going to church and getting the holy ghost. I do get riled when somebody puts words in my mouth and then tries to use them against me.
  reply report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Considering I wasn't addressing you, yet you still came to the defense of your beliefs, I'd say you were riled long before my input that is now gone forever. C'est la vie!
  reply report
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I dunno, Tess, I grew up in a household with a Christian mother and an atheist father. Any problems they (or we) may have had was never caused by religion or the lack thereof. Each gave the other room for their own beliefs. Seeing both sides of the religion story gave me the freedom to explore and make my own choice, and respect theirs. But Tyler was pissed off about misreading what I said anyway. I said "spiritual experience" he repeated it as "religious experience". There is a difference, in my view anyway. A spiritual experience, in my opinion can be anything from seeing a ufo to an out of body experience. And an atheist can react to either in his or her own way. I remember my parents seeing a ufo in the sky one day and both trying to point it out to me. I never did see it. It also didn't change either of their beliefs.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  87
  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I was raised a Catholic but left the religion in my very early 20s. My father was quasi-religious. My mother was a hardcore religionist-she came from a hardcore religious family. I see religion as schizoid. I saw Catholicism as a medieval, authoritarian religion which belongs in medieval times. I also viewed Catholicism as a misogynic religion which no thinking woman would want to belong to. I don't believe in any organized religion. I identify myself as a New Ager who believes in God- a God which is beyond limited, religious labels.
  
  I, too, avoid religionists for I feel that they are fanatical & judgmental of those who believe differently than they do. They are also very narrow-minded in their approach to the world. They view the world as evil. They would be classified as schizoid if you ask me.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  87
  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Religious people avoid the world which they view as ungodly, even evil. They believe that the only authentic world is the religious world. They live by outmoded religious principles which they see as the only validity.
  reply report
  71
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Reading your post, especially the last part, I'm reminded of how the left presents. Narrow minded in their approach, seeing the world as evil; fanatical and judgemental of those who believe differently. Attempting to form an inquisition to ostracize and silence those who think differently.
  
  Is it that humans instinctively need some type of uniform belief structure because they lack the ability, or the interest, to individually parse right and wrong. Does the average person lack the back bone to think critically and live in accordance with their conscience; without the need for group approval?
  
  By denying the existence of a deity, they put themselves into a position to allow the collective to redefine reality. Just as the out of step religionist denies the 'reality' perceived by the main stream accepted beliefs of the faithful who live peacefully in society.
  
  I realize you posted this as a religious question but the political climate we live in reminds me so much of the environment I endured living in close proximity to a JW community I felt compelled to comment.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  71
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Before we could even have a discussion we have to agree on terms. The left is no longer associated with the term liberal. To be honest, the term conservative is not indicative of a fair definition of those who aren't left.
  
  At this juncture, we'd be arguing apples and oranges, which would serve no purpose; nor would it speak to the points of my post.
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  71
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm afraid the answer is no. The terms cannot be international. American political terms are quite different from the definition of the same terms elsewhere.
  
  If you choose to discuss American politics you'll have to limit definitions to American definitions of the terms. I would consider my stand quite arrogant if I interjected my opinion into a discussion of British politics by insisting we use other than British understanding and terminology
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Very interesting discussion, Tess. Where in this does the "God gene" come in? Or does it affect either party?
  
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/
  
  Which of these people would contain the God gene if such a gene exists?
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you. I don't have the patience to read and analyze all of that. You certainly are an interesting person. I think most psychology, astrology, and any other "ology" is man's attempt to explain himself and the universe. As you say, it's all just a hypothesis. I have PTSD also, which limits my patience. I am curious about something though, and I'd like opinions on it. Can an ENTJ change into an INTJ? I started out as an ENTJ, but after some experiences and having my thyroid removed, I am an INTJ. Don't like to be around people anymore. A friend of mine is studying transpersonal psychology (soon to get her masters), and she says the same thing happened to her, but she can't explain it either.
  report
  77
  tsmogposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for posting the links peaking my curiosity as I read their abstract or introduction. I also found articles sharing the state of peer review has not been done. I noticed the third article did use the term 'extreme political ideology' causing me to ponder shades of the spectrum. Yet, I will look further as time allows.
  reply report
  82
  peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  By denying the existence of a deity, they put themselves into a position to allow the collective to redefine reality...
  
  I read this sentence over and over and still don't understand it.
  What is it that you try to say? What collective? Redefine reality.. compared to what?
  reply report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "There is no reality in believing in god..."
  
  Interesting statement. Although I guess I'm classified as an "atheist" under todays definition, I refuse to say "There is no God" because 1) the definition of God changes with the person and 2) I have zero proof. Can you support your statement with something besides "I think it's true"?
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I am familiar with the scientific method and methodology. Unlike most on these forums my degree is in the sciences (chemistry).
  
  But there are lots of things not "tangible" by your definition. A photon, A black hole. An electron. Space itself. Time (is it just a figment of our imagination or very real?). Dimensions beyond the three we can see. The molecular bond between two atoms. Strong and weak nuclear forces.
  
  All are very "real", but we can't see them, can't touch them, can't hear them. Can only assume they are real because of how they interact with things we can see, touch, etc.
  
  And the believer will tell you, loudly, clearly and without any doubt, that their God is quite detectable by the same method; by the results of what He does. The same way a friend will tell me that her house is inhabited by ghosts; from what they interact with.
  
  But I accept your "shorthand"; while sloppy use of language, clarification has cleared up the point.
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Do you doubt there are atoms, as you doubt there is a God? I don't.
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't mention belief (and certainly not any I might have) - I asked if YOU doubted atoms with the same kind of doubt that you doubt a God. That was in response to your own question as to how we know there is an atom. It was also in response to the idea that only things we can see, touch or hear can be known to be "real".
  
  Perhaps it is rooted in the use of language; scientists are taught to forego not only the flowery communication of the poet but also the sloppy use of language seen in most people. Keep communication as succinct and direct as possible; say, as much as is possible, exactly what you mean and only what you mean. "There is no God" is not the same statement as "There is no scientific evidence of a God".
  
  I asked you a question as to your beliefs; you should have known better than to turn it into a comment on my beliefs or even to something equating two different beliefs.
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  But Tess, I do accept that! I followed much the same path, using much of the same deductive process and arriving at much the same conclusions.
  
  The only real difference is that I find that there is probably no god, while recognizing very clearly that lack of evidence of a god does not mean there isn't one (the major gods of the world are defined in such a manner as to make them impossible to detect). Only that the probability is high that it doesn't exist - again, perhaps the difference between one trained in the sciences and one that was not.
  
  As far as being an atheist, when I grew up "atheist" meant someone denying the presence of a god. "Agnostic", on the other hand, mean someone that did not know if there was a god or not; I was an "agnostic", then. But language is not static, and meanings change; it seems that atheists now do not know if there is a god or not, so I must be an atheist. I don't know what the label is for a person that declares knowledge that there is no god. "Ignorant", maybe, as no one can have that knowledge and they must not understand the difference between "opinion" and "knowledge".
  report
  0
  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GDPR Deleted
  75
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  As I said, meanings have changed since I was religious. The label that used to mean "There is no god!" now means "I don't know". Personally, I find it unfortunate, because the older meanings were quite specific (scientific ) whereas the new ones are not.
  
  "Isn't the onus to prove something on the person who postulates something?"
  
  LOL That's what started this conversation; your postulate (although no postulate at all, but a statement of fact) that there is no god. I ask you what you are using for evidence and it became this.
  
  As far as using personal "shorthand", undefined to the general population, I would prefer to hear "I don't think there is a god" rather than "there is no god", for the reasons stated. Perhaps, if one wishes to debate, "I find no evidence of a god" (usually a useless conversation, for the believer typically believes their opinions and conclusions are factual rather than opinion).
  report
  82
  peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think believing in a god is a mental illness. God and religion is a strong meme. By meme, I mean the original meaning of the word. That is an idea that spread itself from brain to brain through an evolutionary process.
  Memes are like genes. But they are not physical like genes, they are ideas. The same evolutionary process as with genes happens with memes. The weak memes live a short time and the strong mimes survive generations.
  Religion is a combination of very strong ideas that are build into traditions. Something that goes beyond one generation.
  Memes want to survive, and the best ideas molded by their environment survive. Religion is sticky. As the ideas that belong to a religion are taught to children from early on. And children are open to all kinds of ideas. When the ideas are coded into a child's brain it is very difficult for this human to ignore them. That's why many people who were brought up in a religious surrounding will still believe in a god, even if they have studied science and know that the world is not created by a god but evolved. Because as a child they were infected by a religious meme.
  And memes are like a virus, they go from brain to brain and want to nestle and stay there, and multiply to other brains to survive.
  In this way, you could say that religion is a disease but so are many other ideas like the international birthday song, or other songs, art, and habits.
  I think a lot of people don't believe in God, but they are still infected with this concept that they were taught by their upbringing. And it's a sticky thing, difficult to get rid of. How many Christians aren't converted into Buddhism or New Age thinking, saying they don't believe in a god anymore, but....there is still something...or they still need a religious structure.
  report
  77
  Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is quite apparent you don't give a damn about anyone's reality but your own. Religious empathy always seems this way, I'm afraid.
  
  "I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
  
  At least that excuse works for those who take a different, but equally-insensitive approach. It all depends on your flavor of forum bigotry, it would seem.
  
  I'd toe the line like all you regulars if you were all worth any more than what I already offer.
  reply report
2. 77
  tsmogposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Simply . . . God is
  reply report
3. 60
  Sikandarwaqasposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  God is nothing.It's just a matter of calming yourself.The human soul always needs support.They resort to God to support themselves.Look at any religion in the world. God does not exist, only the soul.There is practically no God.Spiritually, God exists.
  reply report
4. 82
  peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  God is pre-science. It's a theory to explain the world. But this theory is no longer valid. As we understand more and more about the universe, our world, and life, the God theory becomes obsolete.
  God did not create the world in 7 days. This statement is just as ignorant as saying that the world is flat.
  The evolution theory of Darwin is one of the most proven theories out there. Believing that God created life in a single day is just nonsense.
  
  You do not need a God to tell you what is good or wrong. Millions of people live great and good lives without any God.
  
  So to me, God is just a fantasy. A concept that's made up by man but does not exist.
  reply report
5. 82
  peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  There is another thought I want to add here.
  I think the three main Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) made a big philosophical mistake. And that is to separate humans from the rest of nature.
  “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
  
  This changed our idea and relationship with nature. The disconnection of nature gave us the moral right to use nature without holding back. As It was given to us, we could do with it whatever suited us.
  We alienated ourselves from nature, feeling superior.
  The consequences of this philosophy led to industrialization, deforestation, melting icecaps etc In the end, it led to the by humans made climate crisis we live in today. As our connection with nature was lost. As it was ok to take from nature without giving back. To cut down a tree without planting one. To make products that are poisonous when used up and thrown away, like batteries and plastic.
  It makes sense to see that the denial of the climate crisis is strongest by religious groups.
  The problem here is that religion is only slowly changing, too slow to keep up with modern developments and ideas about the world. Still, it rules the actions of many people and governments, unwilling to change. Even if it's about life and death.
  reply report
6. 77
  schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It's simple, I'm a biooraganism first.
  reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
God is Mighty Triple O:
The Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent force behind all that exists.
reply report
1. 94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  God is all. God is the existence. We are made from God's essence, even quantum physics is proving that. Science and religion are melding. Jesus hinted at that.
  reply report
  77
  schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Amen
  reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
Microcosm/Macrocosm
reply report
61
Ferd Hposted 4 years ago
Ugh, that is such a difficult question.

I think God is something like the structure of reality. And I don't even know what that means exactly.
reply report
1. 94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  And I think you are on the right track. We're just humans and it does get complicated.
  reply report
0
ValKarasposted 4 years ago
God is man's concept of a deity. Other than that -- God is unthinkable.
reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
God is reality
God is ignored, misunderstood and unseen ...
Yet all around us
And within us.
reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
Existence must have started after a thought.
God's thought.
or maybe after lots of thoughts ...
or after a lot of thinking!

BTW How come the Bible never mentioned Dinosaurs?
reply report
1. 94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  That is a good question, Kathryn. The Bible mentions unicorns 9 times, so why doesn't it mention dinosaurs?
  
  Here's an example: Isiah 34:7 (KJV) And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
  
  Maybe it does and the problem is in man's translation. Job 40:15-20 (KJV) speaks of a "behemoth" made by God, and it doesn't mean anything mechanical. Could this be a dinosaur? The description sounds more like a dinosaur than a mammoth. I looked at more modern translations, but they aren't more informative.
  reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
The question was "Who is God to you?"
I suppose some would say Jesus is.
Is Jesus God to you?
If Jesus was God to every one of us, would the world be a better place?

How so?
reply report
1. 94
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed to be God. He called God "his father." Jesus to me was one of God's children just like the rest of us, except holier. Most of us can't live up to his standards.
  reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
Jesus was a perfected human in that He and God were one. He came to save us from ourselves and our ignorance.
He brought enlightenment
He leads the example.
What if we followed his example more widely and more closely.
Or are we?? if not by reading The Bible, but by following our hearts more closely?
Can we just follow our hearts or do we need to read the Bible?
Those who go to church are the lucky ones, I would say.
reply report
80
bhattucposted 4 years ago
God is a matter of faith only but it helps and that is the beauty in that.
reply report
83
Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago
... and yet we are a product of imagination as everything is.
reply report
85
GA Andersonposted 4 years ago
I try to maintain an equitable tolerance level. And I try mightily to stay away from religious threads, but . . . the comments in this thread just scream to be addressed.

Since "God" can't, (or hasn't yet), be disproven, how can the 'there is no god' folks be so certain in their opinions?

Of course, many postulations attributed to "God" can be scientifically explained, but those explanations don't disprove the existence of God, only the singular attribution of an instance to God.

This discourse bothers me. I am not a believer, but the righteousness of non-believers bothers me more. You cannot disprove God's existence. You can only argue the reality of things attributed to God. 2=2 does not equal 4 in this argument.

There are so many positive things that I see in living a life of faith that I am envious that I cannot be a part of them, but there is so much wrong with the arguments of the 'there is no God' folks that I am even more glad that I am not one of them.

It is only my opinion, so file it where you wish, but I think the "there is no God" folks are so full of themselves that they should have a world of their own to live in. Geesh, if I were that egotistical I wouldn't be able to live with my great self.

GA
reply report
1. 82
  peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  but the righteousness of non-believers bothers me more.
  
  In general, the people who believe in a God are by far the people who want to convert other people. They have political parties, power structures, organize festivals, have sports clubs with only their kind of believers. Newspapers with their belief trying to spread the word. TV preachers, People who go door to door to impose an opinion and way of life. They have wars and kill because of a God
  The religious people, all over the world. (and it is the vast majority of people I think) are the ones who talk the most about religion. In general, atheists never talk about atheism, only in a discussion.
  
  So to think that atheists are overstepping their opinion in discussions is something that dwarfs in comparison with believers.
  I think GA that if you compare the two groups, the atheists and the believers, and make a scale for "righteousness" and pointing fingers of how to live your life. The religious people will be by far more aggressive in their ways to convert and impose their will on others than atheists.
  reply report
76
Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago
To me God would be love. Although I am Agnostic
Nature would be my religion
Nationalism is more dangerous than religion.
It is probably why you don't see me much anymore. The us Against them large groups is wasting too much of my peace and time. Better off privatization with good vibrations.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Now For Something Completely Different on the Forums

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Now For Something Completely Different on the Forums

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies